4th edition D&D

[Alkonium]

I agree, but I read somewhere that they also added 'unaligned' - which I personally thought sounded like an interesting idea.

 

Unaligned is just a merging of Lawful Neutral, True Neutral, and Chaotic Neutral, which is idiotic because there are huge differences between each one. Think of the differences between James Bond, Han Solo, and Jack Sparrow and you'll see what I mean. The fact that they merged Neutral Good and Chaotic Good really annoy me too, so I'm wondering how hard it'd be to play 4e with the proper alignment system, since there's not much else I mind, except that multiclassing is gone and humans only get one ability bonus where everyone else gets two.

[RedHawke]

Unaligned is just a merging of Lawful Neutral, True Neutral, and Chaotic Neutral, which is idiotic because there are huge differences between each one. Think of the differences between James Bond, Han Solo, and Jack Sparrow and you'll see what I mean. The fact that they merged Neutral Good and Chaotic Good really annoy me too, so I'm wondering how hard it'd be to play 4e with the proper alignment system, since there's not much else I mind, except that multiclassing is gone and humans only get one ability bonus where everyone else gets two.

This even more supports my "what is WOTC smokin?" thoughts...

[Q]

Their love of the halflings' leaf has clouded their minds.

[Aash Li]

While the cats away, the mice will play... in other words, now that Gygax is gone, WotC can crap all over his game and do whatever they want. 4ed isnt even really DnD anymore... but then Everything since ADnD hasnt been DnD... lol

 

I do like the new look of the Tieflings, thats cool. The Dragonborn is just cheesy.

 

No more Bards = utter failure.

[ForeverNight]

I get a kick out of the fact that the 4e PH has created a world, already, for the players to use, and has done it in such a way that it is going to be harder to create a new world, using the same race descriptions.

 

I dunno about you, but ever since I picked up the 2.0 Player's Handbook (Except for a recent venture into the Forgotten Realms) my friends and I have always created the worlds they play in...

 

With 4e it seems... almost like heresy to do it the way the book is written. (Will I still do it? Heck yeah!)

 

Edit: I was surprised about the lack of Bards... the lack of specialists... the lack of druids... the lack of psionics... well, the lack of almost everything that made 3.5 even playable.

[Point Man]

Who cares? If you don't like the 4th edition rules, play the rules you do like. Make up your own rules, if you like. That's what RPG's are about: your own creativity. The rules are just there to provide some kind of agreed-upon structure.

[mur'phon]

The problem (at least to me) has nothing to do with PnP, but with the fact that Every DnD game from now on will be based on a system WITHOUT A DRUID!!!

[Point Man]

Just wait a couple of years, they'll change it again.

[Arátoeldar]

Who cares? If you don't like the 4th edition rules, play the rules you do like. Make up your own rules, if you like. That's what RPG's are about: your own creativity. The rules are just there to provide some kind of agreed-upon structure.

 

Agreed which is why I like the Law series that Iron Crown put out when they were in business.

[Emperor Devon]

Who cares? If you don't like the 4th edition rules, play the rules you do like. Make up your own rules, if you like. That's what RPG's are about: your own creativity. The rules are just there to provide some kind of agreed-upon structure.

 

Jimbo, I liked the old name! :/

 

If it were as simple as that, I'd make snide remarks about 4e as a system and get bored with the topic after a week. Unfortunately, though, it's popular enough a lot of former designers for 3.5E have stopped making material for that edition. Which subsequently deprives me of new content (that comes from them at least) to have fun adding to NWN2. And while on the tangent of the NWNs, it's also pretty likely a NWN3 will use 4e for the combat system unless the new edition sells miserably. Thought that probably wouldn't stop me from buying the game, it would make the experience less fun.

 

(In short, I have grounds to whine about 4e over even if nothing will come of me doing so.)

 

You didn't specify 4e in your original post when you specified the PH, hence my question. Since it's only been out for about 2 weeks now, you assimilated that material rather quickly.

 

I don't claim to be able to use the mechanics effectively, but I do think I've got a rudimentary understanding of how they work. Enough to speak with some authority about its merits as a system anyways.

 

If it makes you feel any better, people have complained loudly every time a new edition has come out, but the game still goes on.

 

That it does, but not necessarily in a form that I may enjoy.

 

People thought 3e would fail, and obviously it didn't.

 

Apart from how it affects the future of the NWNs, I don't particularly care about the commercial success WotC gets from their products. Fans tend to write better material than they do anyways.

 

Since I have a ton of 3.5e materials, I'm sure we'll be playing that system for quite some time. We have to get through Ravenloft, you know....

 

And Hell. Dicefreaks did oh so good a job fleshing out the Nine Hells. <_<

 

You're going to do all those things [typical dungeonering activities] whether it's 3.5e based or 4e based. In any CRPG, and really any table-top RPG, it's the story that's most important anyway.

 

I never took any issue with 4e keeping things like dungeon crawls and killing dragons, but rather the mechanics with which they proceeded to go about those things. Which despite their efficiency I prefer infinitely less to the previous edition.

 

I can't blame WotC for wanting to make the system more efficient and cut out the useless, poorly designed or redundant things.

 

At the cost of what, taking out everything interesting? A good deal of 3.5's mechanics, especially ones at higher levels (challenge ratings come first to mind) are horribly broken to be sure. But all the same, I think the generally more interesting rules that it had made it worth it. Compare these monsters, as it would take me a very long amount of time to type up all the things I dislike about 4e's mechanics:

 

3.5E Phane

 

4E Phane

 

(Ignore the flavor and focus on the mechanics - or bash WotC for that too. Phanes were supposed to be the unwanted children of gods of time, quasi-deities in their own right, and now they're less powerful than pit fiends.)

 

I can't blame them for wanting to make a system that is more user-friendly mechanics-wise for both DMs and players--the easier they make the product to use, the more likely it will be played/purchased.

 

Again, could care less about how WotC as a company does. I'm irked there'll be less 3E material out, and knowing why that is won't alleviate anything.

 

With the point-based attribute system and the change that says you can assign attribute scores however you want, it doesn't matter anymore.

 

It never did matter, actually - if you don't like a mechanic then house-rule it out. I'd venture a guess as to how many groups chose to roll 3d6 six times and assign points to their ability scores arbitrarily, but I'm sure it would come out absurdly low. Consciously following a rule that has no impact upon the playability of the game but makes it less fun is stupid.

 

and how campaigns are designed now that level 30 is the new cap for the standard game instead of 20.

 

Actually, I think it'll just be larger numbers for the same things. Balors, pit fiends and tarrasques are level 30 monsters. Characters of said level are described as going on adventures involving ancient dragons and threats to whole worlds - sounds exactly like level 20 from 3.5e to me.

 

And on another tangent, if you went into epic levels 3.5 never had a level cap. Though granted, the system is sure to be completely unplayable at level 100. It's broken enough at 30.

 

Nope, no need for useless 'epic' levels with good ol AD&D.

 

Epic levels = levels above 20, not supported in the core rules. I recall BG2 having them, but as it and its expansions were released at the time 3E was out I assumed it was something homebrewed by the devs.

 

Add to it the people at WOTC didn't have a dictionary handy as to the definition of the word 'feat'. Weapon skills are not feats. Ambidexterity is a feat, two-weapon fighting or a proficiency or specialisation in bastard swords isn't.

 

Rename them 'special abilities', then? It's inaccurate terminology, but mechanically they were a great idea. They add much more customization than 2E provided classes with.

 

Let alone the fact that you have to multi-class to make an interesting character in D20 (due to restrictive rules set).

 

'Interesting' is subjective there, as I've played a number of pure-class characters and had fun with them. Multiclassing simply allows you to customize said characters to a greater degree. Typically that doesn't (and shouldn't) provide the same benefits that come with your starting class.

 

The system itself boggs you down and stunts your creativity at every turn. Even as a DM.

 

How so?

 

Is that all that irked you about AD&D 2e? Thac0?

 

Nope. That looks small enough it could probably be house-ruled out. You could probably even convert 2E's AC system to 3E's without much effort.

[Astor]

it's popular enough a lot of former designers for 3.5E have stopped making material for that edition. Which subsequently deprives me of new content (that comes from them at least) to have fun adding to NWN2.[/Quote]

 

There's still plenty of designers out there are still doing 3.5e related stuff, and a new edition is hardly going to stop fans from writing stuff for it.

 

And while on the tangent of the NWNs, it's also pretty likely a NWN3 will use 4e for the combat system unless the new edition sells miserably. Thought that probably wouldn't stop me from buying the game, it would make the experience less fun.[/Quote]

 

Of course they're going to use 4e. NWN is a WoTC licensed product, based on D&D. And, as the now currently official version of the rules, it's bound to use 4e.

 

Apart from how it affects the future of the NWNs, I don't particularly care about the commercial success WotC gets from their products. Fans tend to write better material than they do anyways.[/Quote]

 

Well, if WoTC didn't do well from their products, there wouldn't be any more NWNs.

 

I can't blame them for wanting to make a system that is more user-friendly mechanics-wise for both DMs and players--the easier they make the product to use, the more likely it will be played/purchased.[/Quote]

 

I can agree with that sentiment - I always found 3.5e difficult to get my head around, and 4e looks like something I might be able to understand without difficulty.

 

I'm irked there'll be less 3E material out, and knowing why that is won't alleviate anything.[/Quote]

 

Again, it won't stop fans from making stuff for it. I don't see why WoTC should devote energies and costs to developing things for a system that they've 'moved on' from. It's not like there's already enough source books and material for 3e.

[RedHawke]

Epic levels = levels above 20, not supported in the core rules. I recall BG2 having them, but as it and its expansions were released at the time 3E was out I assumed it was something homebrewed by the devs.

AD&D only had 20 levels... only needed 20 levels, any additional ones were 'house rules'.

 

Rename them 'special abilities', then? It's inaccurate terminology, but mechanically they were a great idea. They add much more customization than 2E provided classes with.

Much more customisation? Are you serious? You obviously didn't play much 2E? Or had a DM who only allowed cookie-cutter characters and campaigns.

 

Problem is that none of the classes got enough 'feats' to emulate what could be done with AD&D 2E.

 

The rules are constraining, to a point that it removes the 'fun factor'.

 

'Interesting' is subjective there, as I've played a number of pure-class characters and had fun with them. Multiclassing simply allows you to customize said characters to a greater degree. Typically that doesn't (and shouldn't) provide the same benefits that come with your starting class.

What is the point of saying 'Interesting' is subjective... as your statements are as subjective as mine here?

 

You needn't multi-class to have an interesting character and capabilities in 2E. Give me 2 Fighters in 2E and you can have 2 relatively unique characters with some quite varied capabilities, in D20 all fighters are the same with very little actual difference in functionality.

 

I have been playing D&D type games for over 20 years, you can only roll up so many 'cookie-cutter' chars before you get bored with it. As much as it may surprise people to hear there are quite a few players like myself who simply cannot stand rolling up another Dwarven Fighter who carries an Axe drinks and eats alot... been there done that... in 1986 or so... it got old quick even then.

 

D20 is a clear ADD Generation 'cookie-cutter' system. Now D20 is great for teaching kids and getting them interested in PnP RPG's, mind you so it isn't all bad, but not a syatem for a vetran player like myself.

 

How so?

Being I need to go to sleep, I will simply say that it has been my expirience with D20 that it is a creativity stunter.

 

The 'changes' to Forgotten Realms for example... just one part.

 

Nope. That looks small enough it could probably be house-ruled out. You could probably even convert 2E's AC system to 3E's without much effort.

I can easily live with Thac0. But we tweaked something out to 'fix' Thac0 long before D20 existed.

[Relenzo2]

Do they do this so that they can sell new sets of books every couple of years?

 

To put it simply... yes. A dad of a friend of mine stil has first version. He used to buy new books 'till, as he said "They were just trying to get me to buy a bunch of expensive crap, so I'm happy with what I've got." And, if they took bards out of DnD 4, I'm gonna' take his side, simplification or no. Heck, I'm the only one of my friend who would even consider DMing and I STILL say that. Have they no class? Fast fingers they got, but they can't fight the Guild Wars without class. Oh, wait, that's a great pun! I wasn't even trying!